THE CHINESE TERM FOR GOD. A LETTER TO THE PROTESTANT MISSIONARIES OF CHINA, BY J.S. BURDON, BISHOP OF VICTORIA, HONGKONG. PRINTED BY DE SOUZA & CO. 1877. TO THE PROTESTANT MISSIONARIES OF CHINA. MY DEAR BRETHREN, In the last Annual Report of the English Religious Tract Society, a Statement appeared from the pen of Dr. EITEL, of Hongkong, professing to give an account of the Controversy about the terms for God and Spirit in China. It is no disrespect to Dr. EITEL to say that this statement, considered in itself, is not worth an extended notice. It is very brief and meagre. He probably wrote it in a hurry with the idea of giving, in few words, the gist of the controversy. The Directors of the Tract Society, however, thought it a statement of great importance, and so they adopted it, and put it on record in their official archives. This gives it an importance which probably the Author never thought of or desired for it, and draws attention to it from those who otherwise would never have thought of noticing it. In writing to Home Committees on such a controversy as that which exists in China, we cannot be too careful both about our facts and our explanations. Those to whom we write know nothing of Chinese, and are utterly unable to understand our difficulties. How many, for instance, of those Gentlemen for whose benefit Dr. EITEL wrote his brief statement, were able from personal examination of the subject to understand the points in dispute about Shang-ti and Shin and Tien-chu? Not one of them would profess to know anything on the subject. They have [1/2] a general impression that a great controversy existed about the question a quarter of a century ago, and that it was then in some way settled, and they are impatient of any attempt to bring the subject forward again. In writing to such persons then, if a statement either of the history or of the merits of the controversy is thought necessary at all, the greatest care should be taken to be strictly accurate as regards facts, and fair as regards the arguments indicated. Now in both these requisites Dr. EITEL has unfortunately failed. It is even a weak and not very clear statement of his own side, but it is decidedly inaccurate and unfair to his opponents. Dr. BLODGET in his letter published in a little pamphlet, entitled "The Chinese Term for God--Statement and Reply," well shows, bow inaccurate Dr. EITEL is in his account of the controversy as it existed two hundred years ago, among the Roman Catholic Missionaries in China. There are other inaccuracies and unfairnesses in it. His Statement consequently misleads friends at home, and tends to perpetuate and embitter the controversy in China. The importance, if there is to be any hope of peace amidst our differences, of trying to counteract such results as these, is my only apology for troubling you with this letter. The natural course in replying to Dr. EITEL's article, would have been to write to the Editor of the Periodical in which it appeared. This, however, is out of the question, when the Periodical happens to be the Annual Official Report of a great Society. No one in China who does not hold Dr. EITEL'S views would be likely to command attention from the Secretaries of the Tract Society or its Committee. A Committee, which has officially taken its side in a controversy, is, as almost every one in his turn is made to feel, a difficult body to reach. I suppose we are all reminded, from time to time, of a certain saying of SYDNEY SMITH'S' about Committees which is very smart, rather irreverent, but perfectly true. In 1866 when I desired to have an Edition of the Mandarin New Testament with Tien-Chu instead of Shang-Ti for God, I applied to the Society with which I was then connected (Church Missionary Society) to recommend this to the Bible Society. The recommendation was made and accepted; and an Edition of 7,000 copies of [2/3] the New Testament with this term was granted me. This rule, I believe, prevails still. If an English Missionary is unable to use the books provided by the Bible Society, they will furnish him with means of procuring such books as he can use, on the recommendation of the Society to which he belongs. The Tract Society professes to be guided in this matter by the action of the Bible Society, and in 1875 when I found myself unable ,to use the tracts and books provided by the Hongkong Tract Committee, I appealed first to the C. M. S., and then direct to the Tract Society, but neither of my applications was availing. I suppose both Societies are afraid of Bishops. At all events my position as Bishop, isolates me from the sympathy and assistance I once found so readily as a Missionary. I am therefore shut up to the course of appealing in this public manner to my Missionary Brethren. I might have taken the more usual course of appealing to you through the "Missionary Recorder," but I felt afraid to ask for so much space as this letter is likely to need. If any one think that there is a great disproportion between the length of Dr. EITEL's statement and my letter, let it be remembered that one line of mistakes often takes twenty to rectify. Dr. EITEL's statement is as follows: "During the past year our committee has been considerably agitated by the vexed question as to the correct rendering of the term “God" in the Chinese language. To any one unacquainted with the peculiarities of the Chinese idiom, it is simply impossible to explain the difficulties which surround this question. Nearly two hundred years ago the Roman Catholic Missions in China were divided into two hostile camps violently opposing each other. The learned Jesuits defended the use of the classical terns "Shang-ti" for "God," as being a relic of ancient Monotheism which obtained in China before either Confucianism, Buddhism, or Taouism misused that term, giving it a pantheistic or polytheistic sense. The ignorant Dominicans, however, seeing in the term "Shang-ti" nothing but the idolatrous meaning given to it by the people of their time, and little caring for idiomatic purity, manufactured the term "Tien-chu," i.e. "Lord of Heaven," which gives the Chinese the idea that there is a corresponding god who is lord of the earth. The question was in true Roman Catholic fashion, decided by a Papal bull adopting the term “Tien-chu," and no Roman Catholic Missionary was [3/4] thenceforth or is now sent to China without having pledged himself by a- solemn oath to use no other term for God. "Twenty-five years ago the Protestant Missions in China were equally convulsed by dissensions as to the correct word to be used. The term “Tien- chu" became all over China the stereotyped designation of Roman Catholics, so much so that in the various treaties which China concluded with foreign nations the term “Tien- chu-kau," i.e, religion of Tien-chu, was invariably adopted to render the term “Roman Catholic religion" in Chinese, therefore Protestant Missionaries rejected almost unanimously the term “Tien-chu." They were nevertheless divided among themselves. All the English missionaries with but one or two exceptions, all the German missionaries without exception, and a small number of American missionaries adhered to the term “Shang-ti," acknowledging indeed that it was not an absolutely perfect rendering of the term God, but contending that it was the best word to be found in the Chinese language. "On the other hand, an overwhelming majority of American missionaries renewed all the charges which in days gone by the Dominicans brought against the term “Shang-ti." They then adopted the word "Shin," i.e. "spirit or spirits," which in the Chinese language, devoid as it is of an article (either definite or indefinite,) and of a distinction of singular and plural, may mean a spirit, or spirits, or the spirit, or spirits, whilst the phrase, “Pai-shin," i.e. "worshipping shin," is the standing idiomatic designation of idolatrous worship all over China. “For the last twenty-five years, all the publications of the American Bible and Tract Societies contained exclusively the term “Shin," whilst those of the British and Foreign Bible Society and the Religious Tract Society of England adhered to the term “Shangti." Meanwhile, however, a number of American missionaries, and signally those of Foochow (Methodist Episcopal Mission) yielded to the representations of their native church members and preachers and adopted the term “Shang-ti," whilst on the other side but two English missionaries rejected that word, one of them bringing forward a new term “Chi-shin," whilst the other contended for the old Dominican term “Tien- chu." "At the proposed General Conference of Protestant missionaries to be held next year (1877,) an attempt will probably be made to bring about a peaceful settlement of this vexed question, possibly on the basis of a proposal to adopt “Shang-ti" as the standard term for "God," i.e. the true God, and “Shin" as the standard term for "god" or "gods," i.e. "false gods." It would be a great gain if all Protestant missionaries in China could use the same tracts and the same Bible all over the Empire. May God give us missionaries [4/5] His Holy Spirit to set this question at rest for ever, with a better result than that arising out of a Papal bull." Before noticing the allusions to rue in this paper, it may be as well to explain briefly the circumstances under which it was penned, so lightly passed over in the opening sentence.